1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the following '2. Additional Judgment' as to the argument that the defendant emphasizes in this court, and thus, it is acceptable as it is in accordance with the main sentence

2. Additional determination

A. The part of the management and disposition plan approved by the head of Eunpyeong-gu on May 1, 2017 (hereinafter “instant management and disposition plan”) that the Plaintiff determined the Defendant as a person subject to cash settlement is invalid for the following reasons.

1) In notifying the Defendant of the guidance for application for parcelling-out on July 4, 2014, the Plaintiff is subject to the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (wholly amended by Act No. 14567, Feb. 8, 2017; hereinafter “former Act on Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas”).

(2) The Plaintiff did not individually notify the members including the Defendant of the overall details of the estimated charges under the main sentence of Article 46(1). (2) The Plaintiff did not individually notify the extension of the period for application for parcelling-out in accordance with the proviso of Article 46(1) of the former Act.

The Defendant asserts to the effect that, after the first project implementation plan was approved on July 30, 2012, the Plaintiff’s announcement (date of announcement: December 14, 2012) related to the application for parcelling-out was not made within 60 days from the date of the public announcement of the project implementation authorization as stipulated in Article 46(1) of the former Urban Improvement Act also constitutes a serious defect in the instant management and disposal plan.

However, the instant management and disposal plan is not subject to the said project implementation authorization, but subject to the authorization for the change of the project implementation on June 26, 2014, and thus, even if the Defendant asserts itself, it is difficult to regard the defect in the procedure of such announcement as the defect in the instant management and disposal plan.

Even if it is different from this, the above-mentioned provision is considered only as a decoration provision, so it was not observed.